Laff Riot

What rot.

I'm usually pretty tolerant of art and stuff, but this is despicable:

During the February 22 episode of the NBC-TV sitcom, "Committed," two non-Catholics are mistakenly given Holy Communion at a Catholic funeral Mass. Nate, who is Jewish, and Bowie, a Protestant, don’t know what to do with the Eucharist, so they make several failed attempts to get rid of it. For example, they try slipping it into the pocket of a priest, dropping it on a tray of cheese and crackers, etc.

At one point, the priest, who is portrayed as not knowing the difference between the Host and a cracker, goes to grab the "cracker" from a tray of appetizers; he initially balks when he discovers that it is the last one. Then he changes his mind, saying, "Oh, what the hell." By far the most offensive scene occurs when Nate and Bowie accidentally flush what they think is the Host down the toilet.

Comments

[Jason]

There's much worse blasphemy on television than this. I don't know why this is getting all the hubbub.

[Christopher Rake]

Flushing the....I can't even write it. I do not want to try thinking of something more despicable.

One hopes this was the result of comprehensive ignorance.

[Brian Visaggio]

I think I may have been the first blogger to comment on this today, over on lovethelife.blogspot.com. I must say, I saw the episode - I, a Catholic, with my Catholic friends - and none of us were much offended. We discussed the episode in some depth afterwards, and were amazed at just how respectful it was. Basically, you had two non-Catholics trying their best to do the right thing, and everything goes wrong.

This is hardly offensive. It doesn't insult the Eucharist. Their utter horror when they drop what they think is the Host in the toilet shows how much respect they had. If they hadn't cared, they would have flushed and been done with it.

But they didn't. They knew - knew, absolutely knew - that they needed to treat this with as much respect as they could muster, because, though it wasn't the Body of Christ to them, it was to us, to Catholics.

Come on. These characters aren't Catholic. They dont know what to do. All they know is it needs to be eaten, so they try to get it eaten.

Imagine how much worse it would have been if they had tossed it into the trash!

[Lynn]

Appalling. This is humor? How low can "entertainment" sink?

[Rachel Balducci]

But it's not like this is something that REALLY happended and hey, be nice, because these people aren't really Catholic but they tried. The point is that the story was written at all.

[al]

I saw the episode, and it was offensive.

Just think if there was an episode about a visit to Auschwitz, and someone had to use the bathroom, and inadvertently availed themselves of a gas chamber, with ensuant hijinks.

[Gerard E.]

Simply inexcusable. Would have been avoided with a phone call to a public Catholic in the biz like Barbara Nicolosi. Paging Bill Donoghue....

[John Heavrin]

"Avoided," Gerard? Why on earth would they want to avoid it? A condemnation from Bill Donoghue is probably worth several Nielsen points for next week's show.

Instead of his usual fulminations, I think Bill should appeal to Catholics to attend a Eucharistic chapel during the exact time of this show's airing every week (whenever that might be), and spend that half-hour in adoration rather than in watching the show.

[Fr. Brian Stanley]

Mr. Visaggio:

If it will help, try imagining the episode with a substitution: imagine some feeble gentiles trying to figure out what to do with a Torah scroll. Or try this: imagine some dopey Christians trying to do something similar to an object of Islamic devotion and reverence. Are these funny to you? Are these appropriate venues for comedy, taking something sacred and putting it in contexts that are specifically created for the heightened insult to believers in those sacred things?

You seem to want to excuse this as some form of ignorance on the part of the characters: they are fiction, but the insult and context are man-made, and purposeful. There is no ignorance here on the part of the writers: it was crafted for effect, part of which seems to have escaped you. Let me recommend spending some time in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, the source and summit of our lives in Christ.

[Brian Visaggio]

Fr. Stanley,

I attempted your mental exercise, as it were, and no, still not offended. I still see the show as being about well-meaning people for whom everything goes wrong. Maybe I'm biased because I'm a writer and this is the kind of thing about which I like to write. Maybe not.

I dont excuse this as ignorance on the part of the characters - I excuse this because of what I percieve to be the essential idea of the episode, that it is often difficult to do what needs to be done. Do I know for a fact if this what the writers intended? No. But, hey, modern fiction theory says that the intended meaning is often irrelevant anyway, and what matters is what the viewer takes away from it.

Of course, I tend to think that that idea is crap, but I digress.

If the idea was about two guys desperately trying to return a torah scroll, and everything goes wrong, it would still have been funny.

As a side note, the joke, if you paid attention to the episode, was clearly on Nate and Bowie, not the Eucharist. The humor is in their horrified reactions and desperate arguing about what to do.

[Therese Z]

I'm with Brian on this one. I saw most of the episode by complete accident and there was an uneducated respect for what they held and tried to treat carefully. A little superstitious, but on the whole, they were trying to do the right thing. Played for shallow laughs, but not mean-spirited.

The part where the Host fell accidentally into the toilet (they weren't being careless, they were being too careful), and it auto-flushed and the Host "rose up again," was actually kind of funny. "It's a miracle!" they said and it wasn't, again, mean, just silly.

The most offensive part is how they portrayed the "priest." In a shirt and tie, wearing a very Protestant-style preacher's robe, came off as a mindless dimbulb.

[Meggan]

Brian V,

You make a very good point. It is interesting and unusual to see anyone on standard television even consider the possibility that the Eucharist is sacred.

I just wish they had found another way to do it. I think that many people wouldn't have seen the flip side like you did. They'd just see a "funny" skit about that cracker that Catholics eat.

I'm reminded of the infamous commercial (which I never saw) for some kind of dip or cheese or something where a communicant takes the host and pulls out a bowl of dip and dips the host into it. That's actually more offensive - as far as the actions of the person in the commercial - than the tv episode because the communicant should know better.

By the way, I went to NBC's website and in the "contact us" section they have a drop down box so that you can choose which show you'd like to comment about. "Committed" is not in the list. I commented anyway.

[Meggan]

This is a little bit related to this topic.
Has anyone seen The Bernie Mac show? It's a show that I really like. It's funny, is not offensive and is about good family values. The kids in the show go to a Catholic school. I've been wondering what anyone here thinks of how the priest/principal is portrayed.

I think he's really funny. But I just wondered what others thought.

[Fred K]

Committed is smart & funny, like Cheers was (but not like the horridly aloof Frazier). Believe it or not, many Catholics thought Monty Python pretty hilarious also.

While I'm at it, y'all would probably be offended by Chaucer's imagery of friars flying out of Lucifer's infernal region and by Dante's portrayal of popes being "baptized" upside down in Hell.

Get a grip. The Church ain't no 700 Club.

[Jeff Tan]

Standing INSIDE the episode, yes, one might sympathize with the characters as having been at the wrong place at the wrong time, and they are supposedly vindicated by trying to do the right thing. However, standing OUTSIDE the episode, the offensiveness comes from the acts of having written and aired THE EPISODE.

If we are to consider the writer's actions, the bottom line is that the ultimate sacrament of the Catholic faith, Christ himself, was ridiculed. The point of the episode's writer was that the host was an ordinary piece of bread that could be used in toilet humor. The fact that it was the Eucharist lends to the probability that they knew exactly what they were doing: for maximum outrage and laughter (each from different groups of people).

Even assuming that the writer was non-Catholic, who had no idea what the Eucharist means to Catholics, ignorance ceases to be an excuse once you reach high school, I thought. In mass media, such lapses in professionalism are normally inexcusable -- unless it's only the Catholics you've offended, apparently. Professor Philip Jenkins was absolutely right about that.

[Brian Visaggio]

Mr. Tan,

Just to clarify, the host was never _actually_ dropped in the toilet. It was a Nabisco cracker.

I have much difficulty believing that I'm the only one who thought the basic idea was not to make fun of the source and summit of our faith. Did you even see the episode?

It was very clearly about people trying - and repeatedly failing - to do the right thing when they didn't quite know exactly what needed to be done.

[Richard]

There's much worse blasphemy on television than this. I don't know why this is getting all the hubbub.

Not sure I can agree.

The real mistake was to think the Eucharist is fit subject for comedy in the first place.

OTOH maybe I shouldn't have enjoyed LIFE OF BRIAN as much as I did. Save possibly for the final scene - simultaneously hilarious and in extraordinarily bad taste - Python worked carefully not to step over certain boundaries. It doesn't sound like COMMITTED pulled that off here. It is hard for me to imagine a devout Catholic - however broad their sense of humor - who believes in the Real Presence either writing a scene like this or signing off on it.

Meanwhile I await Barn Niccolosi's take on this.

best regards

[Michael Shea]

Brian,

"though it wasn't the Body of Christ to them, it was to us.."

What?!?! It is what it is brother. The Real Presence does not depend of the opinion of anyone.

MS

[Zhou De-Ming]

Reverend Monsignor Pastor writes in the bulletin this coming Sunday:

After 30 years of preaching, teaching and experiencing the Eucharistic Liturgy as a Holy Banquet, the faith meal of the Church family....We justifyably take pride in the Liturgies offered in our parish....But I have to admit that I haven't emphasized the Eucharist as Christ's sacrifice of Himself for us, nor have I really stressed his presence in the Tabernacle. This became clear to me when one mother, attending the pre-first communion parents' workshop, stated: "you're not asking me to really believe that Jesus is in that host, are you?"

Maybe it would be funny if it was a television show. Sadly it is real Catholic life in my neighborhood. But at least it sounds like the pastor may be having a change of heart.

[john hearn]

All this makes me glad that I never watch sitcoms. I got burned out on this genera long ago and haven't seen or heard anything since to make me change my mind about it.

[Jeff Tan]

Brian:

(please call me Jeff)

No, I didn't see the episode. No, you're not alone in seeing that the basic idea was not about making fun of the host.

And no, I wasn't referring to the host being flushed down the toilet. Earlier posts by others clarified that. I meant "toilet humor" as in slapstick, shoddy, and quite vulgar.

The offense, as I said, was in the act of writing the Eucharistic bread in for laughs. That it was used as the central prop to ellicit laughter makes it likely that its use was intentional. Perhaps you are right, that the whole point was about two people trying to do the right thing and famously getting it wrong (in the funniest way, of course). That's beside my point: the host should not have been used as an artistic prop.

To clarify, the offense is not the sacrilege type: they didn't use a consecrated host (one hopes). I mean the offense of insensitivity. I said earlier that the body of Christ was ridiculed. That may be a bit excessive, but consider the treatment of the host (as a prop) relative to the reverence it is given in the Catholic faith. The disparity is so wide that one can't help but see that it is tantamount to ridicule.

Again, I'm not talking about how the host was treated in the story. I'm talking about how the host was treated by the writer: as a prop.

Something else to think about is this piece. Are we perhaps such easy targets because we're so relaxed about being soft targets?

[Kate P]

(Side question: why would the Protestant character not know what to do? Don't Protestants have "communion"?)
Maybe I heard this wrong, but I thought "Committed" was copied from a "Britcom" series--sounds like the humor described would be similar. However, to put that in perspective, what the British refer to as "catholic" is Anglican catholic, not RC. So that wouldn't be the Blessed Sacrament, right? Sounds like a poor attempt on the part of Americans to translate. That's why I wasn't interested in "Committed"--looked like just a bunch of ideas done before, and better, by the British. Is American TV so lacking in fresh ideas? Kinda sad.
Meggan--I did not know that about "Bernic Mac". I don't watch too much tv so I never know when things are one, but I'll have to look for that. I'm looking forward to "Joan of Arcadia" tonight. It's drama but there's a lot of warmth and humor in it.

[Zhou De-Ming]

Hi Jeff, Are you the new blogger in Australia that Amy mentioned a couple of days ago?

[Hunk Hondo]

I saw the episode and thought it repellent in a dull way, but not demonically so. I don't see how we can blame two Hollywood writers when our own bishops and clergy are such minimalists about devotion to the Eucharist. It's a pretty sad commentary when two fictitious characters in a sitcom think more of the Sacrament than many Catholics do.

[al]

Again, as I said above, imagine someone visiting Auschwitz and defecating in a gas chamber because of an emergency, which they didn't know was a gas chamber. Doubtless, minus the gravity of the location, this could be comedic.

Nevertheless, does anyone imagine that this would not provoke outrage?

I saw the episode, and while not uncognizant of how it was being played for empty laughs, nonetheless saw through the brazen attempt to touch on a subject that should be radioactive in public discourse.

[Brian Visaggio]

Michael Shea wrote: "What?!?! It is what it is brother. The Real Presence does not depend of the opinion of anyone."

Strictly speaking, sir, it was a prop, but I get your point. However, what I meant was that these characters did not, in fact, believe it to be so, but treated it as though it was in respect for Catholic belief. I apologize if I was unclear.

[Jen]

I wondered when this would hit blogdom. I was AMAZED at the blatent hit against Catholics-and I let a lot of things slide, I'm not hyper sensitive. I agree that if it we change it to a hit on the Jews or Muslims or Buddhists or anyone else, the ACLU would be knockin on the door of that producer.

And while I was astounded at the whole "toilet" scene, even sadder was that the priest-THE PRIEST-appeared to not be able to differentiate between a CRACKER and The Body of Christ!

No, it was probably meant for humor-a Jewish man totally inept at dealing with another religions sacred objects, but at what cost?

[Faith]

Jesus said we would be persecuted for His sake-although technically this was Him being persecuted for entertainment's sake. Hollywood rejected "The Passion", but considers this acceptable treatment of Catholicism? They are to be pitied, and in dire need of our prayers, again, for His sake.

[Shaun Gallagher]

I think of it this way: Either when the episode was being written, or when it was being reviewed by the censors, there simply had to be a moment when somebody said, "Hey, is this going to offend Catholics?"

And the answer was either, "No, I think Catholics will find this hilarious" (unlikely) or "Yeah — but so what?"

Granted, as others have said, it could've been a lot worse ... which makes me think that the censors were indeed active — just not active enough. For instance, I would bet that in some early draft, they did indeed flush the Eucharist down the toilet. So even though we might think it's laudible that the characters treated the Eucharist with SOME respect (e.g. by not throwing it in a trash can), just remember that it was most likely the littlest amount of respect the censors would permit.

But don't worry. "Committed" won't be around for long. That they had to resort to this kind of humor just shows that the writers aren't talented enough to get laughs out of religion by being smart about it. (I'll cite "The Simpsons" as one show that does handle religion well. Can anyone else offer examples of shows that handle religion well?)

Shaun Gallagher
shaun.pressbin.com

[Glenn Juday]

"I attempted your mental exercise, as it were, and no, still not offended."
Mr. Visaggio,

I’m afraid that I have to observe that your perspective is comprehensively confused. In framing your response around your own personal reaction to this particular blasphemy, you are appealing to yourself as the ultimate source of meaning in this issue. But as Catholics we do not do that and cannot do that. We formally subscribe to a belief that the mundane world that revolves around our cares and concerns is not the ultimate source and summit of meaning in our lives or in the world as a whole. God is. And God became incarnate in Jesus Christ who continues to be really, truly, and substantially present in what appears to be a wafer of bread that was made the subject of mirth and, ultimately, disdain in the TV program you commented on.

As Catholics we believe, and publicly affirm, that Christ present with us is of infinite dignity, worth, beauty, goodness, power, might, majesty. Our poor impoverished lives are given meaning, even if only implicitly because we do not know Him through no fault of our own, only in reference to His creative and redemptive act. He is the Reality beyond all reality we know; we are the shadowy construct of His will, not the other way around.

So when we end the course of our earthly lives and meet Him in eternity, we will be confronted with the substance of who we are, determined by the sum of what we have willfully done. Those who have mocked Him, or even treated Him with a casual, provisional sort of respect, will see and understand the radical wrong this represents in the presence of the total, fierce, burning love He offered us in our lives and the good we ignored, or even worse, laughed at. There will be no relief from that realization, no let-up in the burning sensation of shame, regret, loss that our blasphemy represents.

If you wish to offer that to the public as a source of entertainment in exchange for an ignorant chuckle, I must confess I do not understand.

[Dina]

Season 1 Episode 111
The Statue Guy Episode 9:30/8:30 pm 2/22/05

THY WILL BE DONE - - When the statue guy who stands ouside of their building dies, Marni, Nate, Bowie and Tess decide to attend his funeral. While at the funeral, Nate stands in the communion line and accidentally accepts a communion host. Upset about having taken it, he unsuccessfully tries to return it to the priest without embarrassing himself. Elsewhere, Marni tells Tess about her shampoo guy who gives her hairgasms when he washes her hair....
-------

You know, maybe this is God drawing straight with crooked lines.
Maybe this was seen by some of our boneheaded shepherds who are so afraid of offending, or of being "unwelcoming" that they don't do their jobs -- and they will start doing their jobs, at weddings and funerals and Midnight Mass and other liturgies largely populated by the unchurched, and explaining, kindly but firmly, who should and who should not present themselves for Communion.

(Yeah, right.... but I can dream, can't I?)

[Bob Kunz]

Following hard on their mad-cap liturgical gambit, the up-and-coming team of Heisler and Heline will push the limits of comedy with a light-hearted version of Theo Van Gogh's "Submission".

"Theo was a good filmmaker, but maybe a little serious. In the end, he knew what he wanted to do, but couldn't quite pull it off," Eileen offered. "We think a cutting-edge comedy series will stand a better chance of accomplishing what he attempted in 'Submission'. Our working title is 'Who's Got the Burkha?'."

Not.

[Jane M]

...from the Silver Chair by C. S. Lewis ... when the children and Puddleglum find that they've eaten a Talking stag...

"This discovery didn't have exactly the same effect on all of them. Jill, who was new to that world, was sorry for the poor stag and thought it rotten of the giants to have killed him. Scrubb, who had been in that world before and had at least one Talking beast as his dear friend, felt horrified; as you might feel about a murder. But Puddleglum, who was Narnian born, was sick and faint, and felt as you would feel if you found you had eaten a baby."

I read somewhere that camp acts as a solvent on morality. This seems like exhibit A.

[Brian Visaggio]

To Glenn Juday:

excellent comment, very excellent, and, I will concede, you are ultimately right in what appears to be your meta-point, that I (and, for that matter, most) are very rarely as reverent, as aware and respectful of God, as we should be. I would like to mention, though, that the host was at no time treated with disdain in the episode in question. It does not appear as though you actually saw it.

When it comes to a TV show, though, I have no other source on which to judge my perceptions on it than my perceptions on it. You may have found it to be offensive or disrespectful, but, and call my perspective confused if you must, I simply didn't come away from it feeling that. I agree the Eucharist shouldn't be made light of; at the same time, though, really, the episode in question was very much about _doing what you have to do_. Nate could have easily eaten it or thrown it away or stepped on it or ignored it, but he didn't. _He recognized sanctity on some fundamental level._ He knew he couldn't just toss it aside.

Look at it from that perspective. You have a man, confronted with Christ on a very personal level, and he has two options: do something about it, or ignore the whole situation. He has a vague idea of what he sees, but isn't wise enough to follow through. From this view, it almost reads like a parable. Maybe I'm going a little too far, but I'm the kind of guy who sees a little bit of the Gospel in practically everything.

[Tanya]

"Their utter horror when they drop what they think is the Host in the toilet shows how much respect they had. If they hadn't cared, they would have flushed and been done with it."

Brian, you must be insane. Or a fat, pimpled 15 year old.

[Fr Phil Bloom]

Suppose the producers had depicted someone making paper airplanes out of pages of the Koran. Almost all of us, not just Moslems, would react with disgust, perhaps even outrage that something considered sacred could be utilized so crudely. Yet, surely the producers of that sitcom have heard that faithful Catholics kneel in adoration to the Blessed Sacrament, that we consider the Host the most sacred object on this earth. If they did not know, they could have easily found out.

[Glenn Juday]

I see the disdain primarily from the mind that would concoct this plot. At some level the author understands that this object is considered sacred by these people. Humor always requires a straight man, a normal condition deviated from, a standard that serves as the foil.

To choose as that object the perfect Truth, Way, and Life is and cannot be funny, because there is no imperfection to reflect off, no room for absurdity. Only if the truth claim is preposterous itself, absurd itself, inadmissible itself can the humor even have a chance of getting off the ground.

So there is no getting around the fact that this presentation - its authoring, sponsorship, acting, and appreciative viewership - represents a hostile act, contains an innate aggressive edge. And a well-deserved edge for a worthy target some people say. There, at last, is honesty.

Or it may be a blasphemy of the worst sort, with eternal damning consequences (God may give these people the rejection of Him they seek, eternally).

Jesus, as usual, will have the last word.

“Who do you say that I am?”

[Brian Visaggio]

Wow, Tanya. Way to love your neighbor. Good job exemplifying Christianity.

Kudos.

[Jeff Tan]

Ease up, folks! No name-calling please.

There's a lot of talking past one another here: it's either the storyline or the production of the episode. I can understand Brian's point about finding some of the gospel in a story. I didn't, but who am I to judge what he came away with? However, along with others, I make the point that there are courtesies that were dispensed with. These arguments are not on the same wavelength, however. Brian is not faulting the storyline. We're faulting the writers/producers.

I make two further points, too:

1. We don't really expect too much courtesy of this sort anymore. In this crooked generation, irreverence is trendy, and irreverence to Catholicism (what Prof. Philip Jenkins calls the New Anti-Catholicism) carries a bonus: the irreverent gets away with it. Such "controversial or offensive presentations of other groups — of Muslims and Jews, African-Americans and Latinos, Asian-Americans and Native Americans, gays and lesbians," they wouldn't dare, or they'd get sued for it.

2. The production folks obviously treat the *idea* of the Eucharist lightly. We cannot expect otherwise if they don't revere consecrated host as we do. But how do *we* treat the Eucharist? Another way to put this question is: had we been the producers and writers of this episode, would we have used the idea of the consecrated host in that manner? If yes, then we approve of what the writers did. If not, then that's disapproval. I disapprove because I do revere the very idea of the Eucharist as something that shouldn't be a prop for telling a story and some jokes along the way.

BTW I understand there would be objections to my simplification of approval or disapproval above. I don't know if it's watertight, but I'm sure someone will sort me out otherwise.

[Jeff Tan]

Oops.. When I said "We don't really expect too much courtesy of this sort anymore," I meant that we don't really expect folks to be courteous enough not to portray our faith and the Church in a manner that is controversial, offensive or in some way negative. We would love it if they had that courtesy, but it's frequently not the case.